The State of the Job Market for Pathologists: Evidence From the College of American Pathologists Practice Leader Survey

Context.— Disagreement exists within the pathology community about the status of the job market for pathologists. Although many agree that jobs in pathology were harder to come by earlier this decade, recent evidence suggests improvement is occurring. Objective.— To assess the state of the job market for pathologists. Design.— We analyzed data from the 2018 College of American Pathologists Practice Leader Survey. This survey contains data from 253 practice leaders on practices' hiring (and retrenchments) in 2017, the skills and level of experience being sought, success in filling those positions, and expectations for hiring in the next 3 years. Results.— Among the surveyed practice leaders, 115 (45.5%) sought to hire at least 1 pathologist in 2017, and together tried to fill 246 full-time equivalent positions that year, of which 93.5 full-time equivalents (38%) were newly created. This hiring was not limited to larger, academic-based practices, but also occurred among smaller practices and practices based in nonacademic hospitals, independent laboratories, and other settings. Although some practices retrenched (60 full-time equivalents in 2017), the net increase was a healthy 187 full-time equivalents. Practices most frequently sought pathologists who had at least 2 years of experience, but the level of experience identified with the “optimal” candidate varied by desired areas of subspecialty expertise. Practice leaders also reported expected growth in hiring, with the number of positions they hope to fill in the next 3 years exceeding those vacated by retirement. Conclusions.— Our findings support the proposition that the demand for pathologists is strong, at least at the current time.

Professional Competence Is a Condition Precedent to Effective Management-An Argument for Practice Leaders in Legal Service Organizations

There is an unstated argument with an unsettling currency in today’s organizations: Those that can’t do, lead. The concept of management has devolved from a position that facilitates productivity and navigates workplace challenges, to a type of “bullshit job.” To adherents of this philosophy, competence in one’s vocation, profession or business is unnecessary in order to excel as a manager in that vocation, profession or business.In professional environments technical competence in one’s occupation is a condition precedent to good management. Technically competent managers come to positions of leadership with occupational gravitas. Occupational gravitas is forged from experience and imbues those who possess it with the confidence to effectively navigate the challenges confronting their organization. It is earned from experience dealing with the particular challenges of one’s occupation.Leadership skills are an adjunct to the occupational competence necessary for good management in professional environments. The concept that leadership skills are separate and apart from occupational competence, rather than ancillary to it, in the execution of good management is herein explicitly rejected.People placed in positions of authority who lack experience, or are otherwise incompetent, bring with them not gravitas, but fear. Fear is the primary element from which springs management failures, and through which such failures are expressed. Incompetent leadership is not only dangerous to legal service provider organizations and their employees, but also exposes clients to dire consequences. In a legal services environment, bad management really is a public protection issue.The model of a “practice leader,” is the paradigm through which legal service organizations can model their management style. A practice leader is both an accomplished attorney as well as a leader. Practice leaders understand the work and the environment in which it is produced. This is important because it is they and the organization that are ultimately responsible for the work of their subordinates. Failure of leadership in a legal service environment can not only lead to litigation but could also lead to professional discipline when subordinates engage in misconduct.

Allied Health Evaluation Review: Practice and Education Infrastructure

The Allied Health Evaluation Review: Practice and Education Infrastructure was a detailed review of the practice progress of twenty-seven allied health professions. The key objectives of the evaluation review were to determine each profession’s practice status, measured on a common set of parameters that could be compared to one another at a given point in time, and to identify what variables, if any, were correlated with the practice progress of a given profession. Practice benchmarks were established and tools were developed to measure the practice progress of each profession relative to the others at a given point in time. The tools included a practice leader survey, focus group questions, an education infrastructure questionnaire, a job description scoring tool, and an overall scoring guide. At the end of the review, each profession was evaluated on the same scoring criteria and placed on a six-point ordinal scale. Acceptable practice progress was set at or above four out of six. Only thirty-three percent of the professions had scores above the established threshold. Scatter plots were developed to determine which practice variables, if any, were positively correlated with the practice progress of the profession. Many variables were not significantly correlated with a profession’s composite score, including size of the profession, number of areas of practice, use of support personnel, regulatory status, and physician oversight. Two variables were positively correlated with practice progress: clinical linkages, and practice leadership and practice education infrastructure; both correlations were statistically significant. Due to the importance of these two variables, it is recommended that future development and investment should be targeted at establishing and strengthening clinical linkages (e.g., profession-specific practice councils) and practice leadership across a profession, as well as practice education infrastructure. Future research could validate the tools that were developed and determine if investment in the professions, as outlined, improves their overall practice performance.